All Eyes on Gov Lynch

New Hampshire’s Governor Lynch has until Tuesday to decide.  Will he defend the family and veto?  Or bow to political pressure?

Advertisements

21 Comments

  1. KingM said,

    May 11, 2009 at 8:23 am

    What is that “I’m confused” supposed to convey? Worry that otherwise normal kids might grow up to be gay? Is this playing on people’s fears that homosexuality is contagious?

  2. Urabus said,

    May 11, 2009 at 9:40 am

    The message is that innocent children are being taken advantage of by homosexual indoctrinization. They are the real victims of the homosexual agenda. Homosexual behavior is contagious, as is any other moral vice that is portrayed as “normal”. If kids are smoking cigarettes and taking drugs, then more kids will want to do the same. Children are easily influenced and taken advantage of. Homosexuals know this and are warping the minds of young children early on in the school systems for their mentally disseased cause.

  3. beetlebabee said,

    May 11, 2009 at 10:14 am

    Urabus,
    I would add a qualifier to that because not all people who have homosexual tendencies are on board with this activist group, and there are also supporters of this agenda who are not homosexual. However, beyond that I agree that children are being targeted because they are impressionable. They need to be protected from these anti-family political designs. —-bb

  4. Chino Blanco said,

    May 11, 2009 at 11:28 am

    Blech. I’m a straight guy who paid for his two years at NYU (working on a comparative literature degree, no less) by waiting tables and working at the NY public library. Sure it was a culture shock coming off an LDS mission and a couple of years at BYU, but guess what? Even though my chosen location, school, field of study and employment all filled my life with more gay than straight friends for those two years … teh gay never took. Not even once. Because, unlike cigarettes, drugs and booze – which tend to be no respecter of persons when it comes to delivering on their promise of a good time – I’m not attracted to men. Never have been, don’t expect I ever will be, and I’ve got no good explanation for why that’s so other than that I must’ve been born with a peculiar “mental disease” that makes the thought of physical intimacy with another guy about as tempting to me as some of the foods on offer over here in my part of the world (Asia).

    I mean, if I was interested, I could eat dog meat every night of the week here, but I’m not, so I don’t, and after 15 years here, it’s not like I worry about suddenly developing a taste for it. Admittedly, just like all the other lame analogies meant to describe how sexual orientation manifests in a person in real life, that one’s probably just as apt (by which I mean, not at all), but anyways … my point is, based on my own experience, I just fail to understand this whole fear of contagion. That’s not how it works in real life. And as I think about what I just typed a little longer, I’m realizing the dog meat analogy is so flawed as to be really unfortunate, but I’m going to leave it there and see what response, if any, it provokes.

    In any case, rather than scare the living daylights out of yourselves and your kids, why not focus on learning and teaching a healthy respect for boundaries? If you don’t like gay intimacy, for heaven’s sake, you’ve got every right to live your life accordingly, and (in my view) all that’s required of you, as a parent, in this narrow regard, is that your kids get taught to respect themselves enough not to be manipulated by others (gay or straight) who might ask them to compromise their own beliefs or feelings in order to satisfy another’s desires. What we believe and feel about ourselves has a worth beyond rubies or popularity. Agreed?

    Anyway, I’m probably spinning my wheels here (what’s new?), but it’d be nice if at least one other person reading this thread could acknowledge the slur that you’re guilty of here, because in all my encounters with “homosexuals” not a single one has ever remembered to bring their “agenda” with them. Maybe they were just being extra nice to me, but I don’t think so. I suspect the reality is that you’ve targeted a group of people who are simply more decent than your chosen narrow view of the world is capable of assimilating and that scares and upsets you and so here we are.

  5. screaminsteven said,

    May 11, 2009 at 12:15 pm

    Leave the kids alone! This video is the type of thing that just gets me. All this talk sounds so smooth and great and fair right? ha. When we start talking about schools and kids and how this “equality” actually plays out, it’s not pretty. Kids need to go to school to learn reading and writing. Leave the social manipulation out of it.

  6. rubyeliot said,

    May 11, 2009 at 12:23 pm

    Chino, all your examples, include you when you were older. It doesn’t include you when you are a child.

    Whether or not children are homosexual is not the issue. It’s confusing for the family structure. Kids know they are supposed to have a mom and a dad. Whether they voice the void or not…it’s cruel and confusing to deny children their right.

    Changing the definition of marriage removes the only social and legal encouragement children have to protect their right to a mom and a dad.

    Would you deny a child on purpose of having a mother AND a father?

  7. Frisco said,

    May 11, 2009 at 1:00 pm

    As a child, I had no idea what homosexuality was nor did I ever fathom a world in which two men or two women could love each other romantically because I lived in an incredibly sheltered family and community that oozed heterosexuality. I had never met a homosexual, read about homosexuals, or seen a homosexual before I realized that I was gay myself, which was past my childhood. Please explain to me how in this environment I “caught” homosexuality. Is it like swine flu? I’d love to find a vaccine.

  8. Chino Blanco said,

    May 11, 2009 at 1:25 pm

    If we’re going to talk about when I was a child, I’m going to have to pause for moment and thank bb for posting my comments. I would not choose to waste my time typing this if I thought it’d be moderated out of existence. If that’s what happens, whatever, I’ll take my chances this time. And if not, kudos to bb.

    That said, this is my childhood:

    Until my junior year of high school in the podunk town where I grew up, I was the earnest undersized kid who came to school eager for French horn, debate and AP English, Classics, etc. After one too many taunts, I became the kid who graduated Student Body President with varsity football and track letters.

    How did that happen? Because I loved athletics?

    No.

    Because it was the only way I knew how to get my peers off my back.

    And I got lucky that my body responded well to weight training.

    That’s how dumb it all is: grow a few inches, grow a few muscles, trade in the glasses for contacts, play it cool, talk the talk, walk the walk, and all of a sudden, your tormentors have been replaced by followers.

    Sure, I went on to serve as AP in my mission and attend BYU on scholarship and transfer out to NYU on the basis of who I was as a young adult, but as a kid, the biggest deal for me, and even now, as an adult, remains that summer I decided I either had to bulk up and face my tormentors or submit to their view of who I was.

    I survived and I eventually thrived by learning to face down bullies. But I still resent that I had to make that happen on their terms. In a better world, I should not have had to apologize for being the bookish kid that I was, for being who I was, but I changed. For them. And with no regrets.

    But if I can help it, it stops with me.

    I had a great family structure. Awesome Mormon Mom and Dad.

    Do you really think my family situation, my having a Mom and Dad, man and wife, homemaker and businessman, there to offer all they had, did anything to improve the reality I dealt with at school?

    At least as far as this kid was concerned, not in the least.

    I knew kindness at home and cruelty at school.

    As far as I can tell, none of you here are doing much to make sure that doesn’t happen to some other kid. If anything, you seem to be perpetuating the problem.

  9. Delirious said,

    May 11, 2009 at 1:51 pm

    By telling children they “might grow up to be gay”, there is an assumption that more people are gay by nature than is actually probably true. It makes the assumption the being gay is almost as much the “norm” as being heterosexual. But in fact, I think the true statistics would show that those professing to be gay are a very small percentage of the population. But I do think they would like to increase those numbers through indoctrination.

  10. Chairm said,

    May 11, 2009 at 3:32 pm

    Actually, the primary concern is NOT about “converting” people to homosexuality.

    Marriage brings men and women together and among many other things the unity of fatherhood and motherhood teaches profound lessons that go far beyond the morality of sexual behavior. But it surely does not exclude that either.

    Those who support SSM are very likely to shrug when they learn that children raised in “homosexual” households will tend to experiment more with same-sex sexual behavior (and indeed promiscuous behavior in general at an earlier age) just as they tend to do in other domestic arrangements that lack one or the other sex, such as single-parenting families. Likewise when SSMers learn that such children are more likely to be more politically astute in terms of gay identity politics. That’s not insignificant to gay activists who are very happy to point to the influence they have already exerted on schoolchildren and the younger generations.

    It should come as no surprise that this stuff is highly significant to the views of those who support the core meaning of marriage.

    What I come across, time and time again, is that SSMers want to society to deal with marriage, and with sexual behavior in general, in a more ‘queer’ way.

    See (and listen to) the remarks of a prominent advocate of SSM who makes the claim that —

    “We’ve made gains not because we’ve shown heterosexuals that we are just like them, or because we’ve persuaded them to respect our “differences,” but because many of them have become so much like us that they find us less threatening, less dangerous, less strange. In other words, for the last several decades, our lives have been flowing with the powerful current of social and cultural change. We have been swimming with history, not against it.”

    He wants society to be taken out to sea by the undertow that is more queer than marital.

    See 1 –
    http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2008/11/polyamory-as-part-of-justice-agenda.html

    See 2 –
    http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2008/11/beyonders-and-ssmers.html

    See 3 –
    http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2009/03/reductio-ad-absurdum-illustrated.html

    I doubt that anyone can read those blogposts and come away thinking, hey this SSM campaign won’t change marriage (the way that the SSM campaign’s most prominent advocates promise it will change marraige). But maybe some will surprise.

  11. Robert Dennis said,

    May 11, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    Born Gay ? Well i would actually say that everyone is born gay,murderer,thief,drug user,alcoholic,rapist,ect The bible say’s we are all born under sin! you just choose the life you do, and live it!. For me I chose drugs and stole things, others may drink, or murder someone!, It’s all something we do! and It is something we choose!,

    I do believe when we start allowing values and morals to be replaced with things that are contrary to what we hold dear then we can see the decay of our society beginning to destroy what we were!- the old fashion word REPENT doesn’t get said nor recognized in the world today!

  12. KingM said,

    May 12, 2009 at 2:48 am

    So, the main fear of the anti gay marriage crowd does appear to be that homosexuality is catching. Couldn’t you make the same argument for someone who has older sisters who are always talking about boys, or for going to gym class where the guys all shower together?

  13. Chairm said,

    May 12, 2009 at 6:46 pm

    KingM, why do you emphasize sexual orientation when discussing the marriage issue?

    What is the public aspect of the sexualized relationship type that you have in mind?

  14. KingM said,

    May 13, 2009 at 2:50 am

    Chairm, I have no idea what you’re talking about.

    From my point of view, it seems like you’re trying to legislate again sin. Since sin is subjective (is eating pork a sin? drinking coffee?) I would argue that you should let religion determine sin and let the state mandate equal rights under the law.

  15. Chairm said,

    May 13, 2009 at 9:41 am

    Hang on. So your point of view on the marriage issue is not based on your point of view on sexual orienation?

    Marriage is a sexual relationship, by type, and it is a public relationship, by type, and as such its sexual aspect is public for a very good reason.

    See the marital presumption of paternity.

    Now, I was asking you for the reason you’d emphasize sexual orientation; and asking what is the public significance, if any, of the sexual aspect of the relationship type that you have in mind.

    Let me suggest that you have in mind some subset of The Homosexual Relationship — one which you might hold up as ideal for those who have this or that sexual orientation — and this is why SSM argumentatin emphasizes sexual orientation when complaining about the man-woman basis of marriage.

    My questions go to the heart of your contention here about equality and about religion and about the law.

  16. Urabus said,

    May 13, 2009 at 12:37 pm

    Frisco said: “As a child, I had no idea what homosexuality was ……I had never met a homosexual, read about homosexuals, or seen a homosexual…… Please explain to me how in this environment I “caught” homosexuality. Is it like swine flu? I’d love to find a vaccine.”

    Putting aside your sardonic tone and thinking you might be at least somewhat genuine in your request, I put together these links for you to get help.
    http://couragerc.net/

    http://www.drthrockmorton.com/

    http://www.exodus-international.org/default.asp

    http://www.jonahweb.org/index.php

    http://www.narth.com/

    http://www.pathinfo.org/index2.htm

    http://www.peoplecanchange.com/

    http://pfox.org/default.html

    http://www.help4families.com/

    http://www.witnessfortheworld.org/enter.html

    But Frisco, like an obese person that needs to loose alot of weight, there is no majic pill or vaccine for homosexuals. There is no homosexual lyposuction. *You* have to do the work. One thing I notice is that your parents failed you in this regard. My kids all knew what and why homosexuals are as soon as they were old enough to read. But you are an adult now and cannot blame anyone for a course that you continue to choose as an adult.

  17. KingM said,

    May 13, 2009 at 4:08 pm

    I don’t complain about the man-woman basis of marriage. That’s the basis of my marriage and I’m quite happy with it. I don’t see the need to enforce my type of relationship on people who are uninterested in and unsuited for that lifestyle.

    Now, I could see arguing that the state should not be deciding who is and isn’t married in the first place. This seems a relic of when state and religion were more or less the same thing. How about if the state only determines unions of like-minded individuals and churches or individuals can determine who is or isn’t married according to their own definition of the word. That would be an alternate way to deal with this issue.

  18. Chairm said,

    May 13, 2009 at 11:03 pm

    Okay, KingM, your point of view on the marriage issue does appear to be based on your point of view of sexual orientation or … lifestyle.

    Marriage is a public type of relationship. Your comment would reduce it to a private type of relationship.

    That can be applied consistently, of course, in just the way you suggested. This amounts to deinstitutinalizing marriage.

    In the meantime, regardless of sectarian concerns, society is a party to all marriages. And government represents (our pluralistic) society as a whole. I don’t see the need to abandon that for the sake of the gay version of identity politics.

    But, as I said, if this is your basic preference for how to go about resolving the conflict over marriage, it could be applied consistently. The trouble is that SSM argumentation would not be very tolerant of your viewpoint should SSM be merged with marital status. On the other hand, the defenders of the man-woman basis of marriage generally are also opponents of deinstitutionalization — but also defenders of the principle of pluralism. We tend to stand together against the peculiar sectarianism of gay identity politics.

  19. Frisco said,

    May 14, 2009 at 2:57 pm

    *You*, Urabus, have to do work concerning phonetics and spelling. “Magic” has a “g”, not a “j.” Clearly my parents failed at isolating me from the homosexual world, as I did not know it existed for 15 years. To me, that would be pretty good work, but who am I to judge as their only child? At least they taught me how to spell.

  20. palerobber said,

    May 18, 2009 at 10:28 am

    he’s signing it – you lost again.

  21. Vinny said,

    August 25, 2012 at 12:26 pm

    tena koe (hello) my names vinny im 30 from new zealand, ive been reading through this and i do say i have to agree, i dont support the gay marriage bill but saying that recently my sister age 29 was married last year to a young beautiful pakeha (english) girl, they wurnt able to be married in a church so we had a JP wed them both at a green reserve, i myself am bi-sexual, im not looking to ever have a gay marriage because i feel that to prove you love somebody you do not need a ring. I have a 17 year old daughter who I love to bits, I have this same gay straight talk with her, I do feel sorry for her as she has 3 mums, well 1 mum and dad, myself and my ex partner had our ups and downs its such a shame for her to have to grow up with a bi father and a lesbian mother. had the sex talk with her, now my daughter has a 15 year old boyfriend who i get along with, both of them were picked on at school because my girls mum and her partner were seen kissing in public and other children had picked on my girl saying that she has been involved in sexual activity with her mum, calling her an up and coming bum hole rimmer.

    when i eventually did catch up with these kids and there parents, it had been the parents encouraging them to tease, to put a stop to that I had to inform the school who wanted nothing to do with it even tho was this school that my daughter was been humiliated at. the next step i took was i went to police who in turn took things serious and had the other parents charged for acts of humiliation, volgar use of language, racism. I dont agree with marriage but i do agree that gay/bi parents are and can be better, how many gay parents have you heard of or read of have actually sexually assaulted, raped, taken advantage of or sexually abused there own child. i tell ya now, would be way less than a straight parent or person.

    im sorry if my little story went of track, i dont like the idea of legal gay marriage so NO to bill hb436.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: